Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 4448 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

to surrender weapons which the Bill makes illegal, no amount of diligent police work will uncover all the illegal guns kept in hiding, and no amount of public horror will guarantee that this county will never again have to mourn innocent victims of some future shooter firing at random. Those things this Bill cannot deliver.

The Bill can only regulate those people of goodwill and commonsense who accept that its provisions constitute an acceptable limitation of what was formerly a civil liberty. It is unlikely to have much effect on gun owners who have seen too many bad movies or who believe that it is appropriate in Australia to emulate the pressures applied to the US Government by the National Rifle Association under the constitutional right of people in that country to bear arms or those who proclaim their patriotism in their willingness to take to the bush and wage guerilla warfare if Australia is ever invaded.

These people had too much attention in the media, Mr Speaker. Their inability to accept that their arguments are untenable is enormously frustrating. Their refusal to accept the decision of the majority is gravely distressing. The Bill offers them the chance to move into the mainstream of Australian opinion about guns. That opinion, clearly, is that no civilian in the country needs a firearm of the kind that the military use. The Government's Firearms Bill provides the mechanism for expressing that opinion as the law of this Territory, and I expect that every member of the Assembly will join with me in voting for it.

I have similar expectations, Mr Speaker, about the Prohibited Weapons Bill, which complements the Firearms Bill. This Bill is much more simple. It simply says no to a range of nasties with a capacity to kill or maim without making a loud noise. No responsible citizen has any need of these implements for self-defence. People who carry them as weapons of aggression deserve the full punishment, as the Bill provides. People who use them against other people deserve the heaviest penalties that are available for a court to order. Mr Speaker, I repeat: No amount of law-making or political piety will absolutely prevent people from killing each other. But, by imposing controls on the possession and use of tools that are capable of killing, these two Bills, I believe, will play a significant role in reducing the incidence of those crimes. For that reason, Mr Speaker, I support them totally.

MR OSBORNE (12.18): I would like to echo the words of most of the members here today, especially the very well thought out words of Mr Kaine. I thought that it was a very balanced and sensible argument. Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I will be supporting everything here today. However, there are a number of questions I still have in my mind and a number of issues that have been raised with me that I intend to pursue further. Some issues were raised with me this morning, but that is something that I will take up with Mr Humphries in the new year.

I think that the vast majority of law-abiding shooters have, unfortunately, been tarnished by this whole debate. I suggest that the vast majority of them are sensible, law-abiding citizens who have been pushed into a corner somewhat. However, I think that what is proposed here today is, firstly, very much needed. Secondly, I think this whole gun debate perhaps has been used somewhat to ease the pain of Port Arthur. As I said, unfortunately, some people have been placed into a hole that they are probably not deserving of. Nevertheless, I will support all that has gone on here today.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .